LUCKOSE ZACHARIAH @ ZAK NEDUMCHIRA LUKE AND OTHERS versus JOSEPH JOSEPH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 18-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
LUCKOSE ZACHARIAH @ ZAK NEDUMCHIRA LUKE AND
OTHERS
v.
JOSEPH JOSEPH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.173(2), 173(8), 173(3),
173(6) – Initial Report and Supplementary Report – Duty of
Magistrate – As per the law laid down in Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali
whenever a supplementary police report is filed after the original
police report, the Magistrate has to consider both the reports
conjointly and should not place reliance only upon the
supplementary police report – Both the reports have to be assessed
conjointly so as to find out whether there existed grounds to presume
that the accused has committed the offence.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside
the order of the Magistrate for the simple reason that after the
supplementary report submitted by the investigating officer, the
Magistrate was duty bound in terms of the dictum in paragraph
42 of the decision in Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali, as well as the
subsequent three-Judge Bench decision in Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya v. State of Gujarat to consider both the original report
and the supplementary report before determining the steps that
have to be taken further in accordance with law. The Magistrate
not having done so, it was necessary to restore the proceedings
back to the Magistrate so that both the reports could be read
conjointly by analyzing the cumulative effect of the reports and
the documents annexed thereto, if any, while determining whether
there existed grounds to presume that the appellants have
committed the offence. [Para 15][923-F-H; 924-A]
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 : [2012] 13
SCR 1005; Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of
Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 : [2019] 15 SCR 936 – relied
on.
Joseph v. Antony Joseph 2018 (3) KHC 23 – referred to.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 917
917
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 13 SCR 1005
relied on
Para 6 (i)
[2019] 15 SCR 936
relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
256 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No.2240 of 2020 (H).
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Raghenth Basant, Manu Krishnan, Arjun
Singh Bhati, Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, Ms. Urja Pandey, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Sr. Adv., T. G. Narayanan Nair, Sooraj
T. Elenjickal, Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Aswin Kumar M. J., Harshad V.
Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Kerala dated 3 March 2021.
3. On 3 February 2016, FIR 205 of 2016 was registered at police
station Alappuzha North against the appellants for the alleged commission
of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 324 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1806. The first appellant was named
as the second accused, the second appellant as the third accused and
the third appellant as the first accused. On 26 September 2016, the Sub-
Inspector of police at Alappuzha North police station submitted a report
under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 implicating
the appellants in the commission of the alleged offences. The case came
to be numbered as CC No 2177 of 2016 before the JFCM Court - I,
Alappuzha.
4. The first appellant moved the Superintendent of Police and the
IGP complaining of the registration of a false case and sought a further
investigation in the matter. On 21 February 2017, the Dy SP
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
(Administration) Alappuzha submitted a report recording that there were
serious flaws in the earlier investigation. On 6 December 2017, the Dy
SP Crime Branch submitted a supplementary report before the court of
the JFCM Court - I, Alappuzha recommending that the proceedings
against the appellants be dropped on the ground that no offence had
been established during the course of the further investigation.
5. The first respondent filed a protest petition. By an order dated
19 May 2018, the Magistrate dismissed the protest petition for want of
prosecution. On 30 May 2018, the Magistrate accepted the final report
observing that the protest petition lodged by the complainant had been
dismissed.
6. The first respondent a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.